click to show more information

click to hide/show information About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
544

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 4, Mr. Yee 3, Mr. Reiskin 2, Chiu 2, Nolan 1, The City 1, Judson 1, Vaughan Yee 1, Mr. Michael Pappas 1, Reiskin 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV2    [untitled]  

    December 4, 2012
    3:30 - 3:59pm PST  

3:30pm
can, i certainly favor option 4. i think we've heard a lot of comments of people who were just generally opposed to the project overall. those arguments continue to. some merit, but the decision has been made and i continue to support the project, especially given how far we've come. so, my question really relates to option 4. do you think it's possible or feasible or likely that we will be able to accomplish all that is set up to be accomplished for option 4 by february 1st, 2013? >> so, i think that's a fair question. i guess i'd first say i wouldn't have recommended it if i thought it was not possible. i think there's a tremendous amount of work to be done and there are a lot of things that need to fall into place quickly in order to make that happen. as i mentioned before, i have been in conversation with president chiu about this. i've been in conversation with mayor lee about this.
3:31pm
our sense was as i said before, the city family can come together and marshal the resources to try to make this happen. and if we have a willing party in terms of the property owner, i think it is possible. we have evaluated the level of environmental review that we believe would be required. we believe that it's doable in that timeline. the other approvals we believe are doable in that timeline. it's certainly by no means easy. it's by no means a slam dunk. but, again, would not have recommended it if i didn't think it was viable. as i said before, i think it is a win/win scenario. it's one that i would like to see happen * . and with regard to the timing, as i tried to explain, if we don't make a decision by a certain point, we start to impact the project and put the agency and the san
3:32pm
franciscans who fund it at risk. so, that's where we got this, the deadline from. while the specific day is not based on science, this is not an arbitrary deadline, we need to make a decision around that time if we're going to do something other than, other than the base case. i would suggest that, if i might , perhaps the wording of the resolution to address what i think is a very clear issue of trust be something along the lines that if we're not able to achieve option 4, that we return to you on the meeting of february 5th, which would be coincidentally on february 1st to explain where we are. >> i personally would have no objection to that. and just to be clear, is it -- the decision under option 4 need to be made by february or
3:33pm
all of the preconditions that we've talked about need to be sewed up? i mean, i realize there can be a point in january where it all looks like it's lining up and you and the agency decide, we're going forward with option 4, subject to some contingencies. and if those go bad, it has the negative impacts you talked about. but i think the concern from the community that we're hearing, and i know you hear this, is that we sort of set a false goal. so, i wonder if february 1st is really the anticipated deadline to have everything done, all the environmental review, all the funding, all the agreements, or is the deadline really to make a decision and say we're far enough along the road that we're going to pursue option 4 despite some contingencies accepted down the line? >> i see it as the latter. if, for example, we had all of our approvals and didn't have
3:34pm
meeting -- we were requesting a supplemental appropriation from the city and that wasn't scheduled till the second week in february, you know, what we need to know is around february 1st that we have everything lined up to be able to make this happen. if that's the case, then we can move forward even if we still have a few loose ends to tie up. as we slip much beyond february 1st, we're kind of by default making a decision on the currently approved project. that is the only point. >> sounds like you and i have the same objective. i appreciate the assurance to the community members and to us that you wouldn't have put it on here for option 4 if you didn't think it was at least, you know, well within the realm of possibility. and, so, two questions. would it help us, would it help you in your political and other efforts if we were to change the whereas clause that sort of suggests all of the approvals and funding have to be obtained
3:35pm
by february 1st to essentially say they all had to be lined up or, you know, presumed to be feasible by february 1st, number one? and number two, would it help you if, as one of our valued constituents said, that we really change the resolution to say we're directing you to make option 4 happen to the extent you can? or do you really read it that way right now? >> to the latter, that's what i read and i read it as a direction from the board to make 4 happen. >> good. >> in terms of modifying the whereas to speak to the spirit of having everything lined up such that we know that, say, option 4 is certain as opposed to every last approval in place, i'm fine with that. >> well, i think -- and i'm glad you said that and i'm sorry to beat a dead horse, but this is important. i think there's a difference between certainty and a close -- you know, a comfort level where we're willing to go down this. and we recognize there's some
3:36pm
risk that something may unravel and we may have to deal with it. and i think the concern i'm hearing and sensitive to is if you require certainty by february 1st, that's not going to happen. but it is quite feasible to get the february 1st for you and we can't tell you what to do, have enough comfort that it's worth pursuing this option further. that's the difference i see. >> i'm sure there's language we can find that would achieve that goal. >> [speaker not understood], the notion i suggested, to come back to this board as opposed to, say, force them and bring it back to the board at that point. >> again what i would suggest is rather than trying to do something in january, that we were -- basically if option 4 isn't looking good, come february 1st, that i come back to the board on february 5th. >> [speaker not understood] will still be at the board level, which gives the public ample opportunity once again to come and talk about where we are at that point. >> correct. >> [speaker not understood] obviously try to make 4 work,
3:37pm
it seems to be support for that, among people who support the project. members of the board, any questions or comments? >> you covered my comment. >> okay. >> we don't need to beat a dead horse, and i'm to continue beating it for a brief second. are we worrying about the language of the resolution at this point or is that going to be something -- do we have that taken care of? because i just have a slight concern on the last further resolved clause. that ties into what you -- >> the question would be if -- i think you have a pretty clear direction to make option 4 happen if you can. and i think a lot of the concern about the resolution is what happens if you don't. are we here by resolving -- authorizing you to do a bunch of other things? i think that is the concern in the community. if we're changing that as president nolan suggested to say, make option 4 happen, and if you can't, come back to us, it all but makes the resolution irrelevant, i think. i mean, at this point you just received clear direction from the board on one proposal.
3:38pm
no, our city attorney never thinks these resolutions are relevant. >> i think you're free to move forward in that direction without approving the resolution. i think give guidance to the directors sufficient without approving the resolution. but i also note i think the thing that appears to generate the most concern in the resolution is actually the whereas clause which is much more specific than the resolved clauses. >> that's right. >> limit the resolution all together and do a [speaker not understood] to the board, is that something we can do? give direction to mr. reiskin along the lines we suggested here, to actively aggressively pursue number 4? and report back to us the february 5th meeting which will be the next meeting after that about what's happened to that and perhaps on january 15th a report along the way of how likely it looks. >> listen, we've got a staff recommendation and i don't disregard that lightly.
3:39pm
but the point here is we've been told by our old friend judson true and several respected member of the north beach and local neighborhoods that we've got some trust rebuilding to do. and what i hear as the biggest concern of trust is that this resolution will allow us to back slide so to another option that they don't want * so that maybe to me we junk the resolution and do everything we can to make option 4 happen. we're not making any promises. clap lap >> don't clap, there's no promises. just like i told the free youth riders, no promises, but we'll try. and then we'll come back and do it again. * >> i think it would be appropriate to have some sense of the board resolution -- not resolution, some kind of the sense of the board [inaudible] -- a motion or something. >> mr. chairman, actually you can just approve a motion to take no action, to give direction to pursue option 4, and return to the board on february 5th. >> is that a motion somebody would like to make? >> i would be happy to make that motion.
3:40pm
>> i'll second. >> further discussion? >> i would just like to make sure that we have director reiskin's approval and that we're not walking into something that isn't -- i mean, again, i don't disregard staff recommendation. >> i think that's fine. i think it meets the spirit of what we were proposing and it makes it clearer. and i think it gives the assurance that we need to the public. i think it's a good solution. >> important city departments that should be involved in this are already working together. the mayor and supervisor chiu already support it. we have the sense of the board, a motion and second. any further discussion? all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed? it passes. appreciate your efforts. (applause) >> we'll take a recess here. >>please stand by; meeting in recess
3:41pm
3:42pm
3:43pm
3:44pm
3:45pm
3:46pm
3:47pm
3:48pm
3:49pm
3:50pm
3:51pm
3:52pm
3:53pm
3:54pm
3:55pm
>> item 12, presentation discussion regarding the implementation of sunday meter enforcement.
3:56pm
>> mr. yee is going to come up and give you an update. you had asked when we approved the budget that we return to you prior to the end of the calendar year and report to you on our progress and preparations towards the implementation of what you approved. so, we just have a kind of brief update for you and then we're here to answer any questions that you have. >> thank you. mr. yee? good afternoon, mr. yee. >> good afternoon, mr. chairman, members of the board, mr. reiskin. vaughan yee with sustainable streets. as you recall, you approved the enforce. of sunday parking meters as part of the last two-year budget cycle with the target date of implementation by january 6 of 2013. * so, i'm here to give you a brief update on where we are status wise on that process. basically we've taken two
3:57pm
tracks to accomplish that goal, target date. the first is that we are focusing on the communications to try to achieve some widespread awareness of this significant policy change, and to raise awareness of the new metering hours before this target date, we are doing -- we are having -- we'll be having parking control officers to distribute fliers on cars in december as part of their regular duties. we're placing advertisements on muni bus exteriors, half page ads in the various newspapers and the customer service center. we are including book slip notices in fast track quarterly summaries and also the sfmta rpp program, renewal notices. we're using the existing meters by the plate inside the dome as well as stickers, decals on the meter face itself to notify the
3:58pm
public of this upcoming change. and we are also issuing announcements through press releases at all of our social media outlets and our sfmta website. and we also will be doing a mass e-mail blast announcement to the various parties, stakeholders, including the board of supervisors, merchants, neighborhood groups, civic and religious organizations. excuse me. we also plan to have our parking control officers after the january 6 date to have a three-week basically grace period starting on january 6, 13th and also the 20th. and those three sundays we will not be citing formally violations, but instead issuing
3:59pm
a friendly courtesy notices of the violation and the need to start complying. again, the decals on the meters of the new hours and the enforcement times will stay put on the meters. we have also met at your suggestion with a panel of religious and community representatives in mid november. its was very successful. they had a lot of good suggestions on how to do outreach, and we are volunteering to meet with one of the leader of the group, mr. michael pappas, to the inter faith council to personally visit with him some problem locations that he had suggested and also work with him to see if there are some solutionses and outreach methods we can try to reach some of those affected parties to try to relieve